Code question

[tshea]

Re: Code question

mdshunk said:

If you were doing a panel change in a house that had ungrounded romex or reduced ground romex, would you be required to rewire the house? Would you be required to install AFCI breakers if you could even sort out what all fed the bedrooms? Would you be required to add more small appliance circuits because the current 'kitchen circuit' also does 1/2 the house?

This has a tricky answer--maybe!
In my city, we are required to do just that when we change a service, by City Ordinance.
Now just outside the city in the town or village, we can just change the service without upgrading any other part of the house. However, in the case presented by chrisausti, we absolutely, would be required to change to 4c and seperate the neutrals and grounds. This would be considered as part of the service upgrade.

 

[molotov27]

Re: Code question

BRAINFART #2

[ May 27, 2005, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: molotov27 ]

 

[james wuebker]

Re: Code question

chrisausti,

Mostly everyone is correct in saying you need to run 4 wires now to the sub.I know you were trying to save your friend a little money but you should have been on top of this and told your friend that it was going to cost a little more money to get this updated correctly. I know in the old days we did it just like you did, but we all have learned a lot more about the code since the old days. If I was close to where you were at I would come over and give you a helping hand at no cost. Good luck.
Jim

 

[iwire]

Re: Code question

Do I understand the job correctly?

Replaced the main panel that originally fed a sub panel with 3 wires?

Now the inspector insists you must install a 4 wire feed to the subpanel you had nothing to do with?

No way, at least not here.

This is a time I am glad I live in MA. Here an inspector could ask for the upgrade they could not force me to make happen.

Here we have some added rules to the basic NEC, here is Rule 3.

Rule 3.
Additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance with the requirements of this Code. The installation shall not create a violation of this Code, nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation.

We are not taking about creating a violation, the violation was already there.

To me this is just plain common sense.

Lets say the inspector makes you change this 3 wire feeder to the sub panel. Now he looks at the sub panel and says "This needs AFCIs installed as they feed bedroom circuits" or "You need to add 20 amp circuits to the bathrooms".

Originally posted by molotov27:
Any installation has to be Code compliant, and not changing to the 4C
is not complying with the Code.

Really?

Does this mean if you change the service panel in a house with Knob & Tube you rewire the entire house to current code?

[ May 21, 2005, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Code question

This is a tricky area you are up grading an exterior panel and thats all.Should the rest of the home be grandfathered in.Well that depends on ahj area past inspections.I oroginally posted it should be a 4 c system to the sub,but after thinking about it it might not be the case,now if you also changed out the sub well cut and dry yes.but in retrospect i might tend to agree that it can stay .To say it will have to be changed is the same as saying that now afci`s are required etc.The inspector has the job of ensuring what has bee installed is correct but IMO I think what is down stream is grand fathered in.It was a 3 w system before panel change out stays 3 w.
Now i have seen where a homeowner pulled a service up grade and stripped the entire house of drywall moved walls,doors and wanted to know why they had a stop work order posted If it is a simple panel change out I am tending to think the inspector overstepped his boundries.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Code question

Molotov, you could not be more wrong on every point.

I think that fact that everyone is missing is that THE INSPECTOR CANNOT allow the installation as it is, and that is why he is holding you accountable for it. As an inspector he cannot just say... well, leave it like it is because it has been working fine...plus some other inspector OK'ed it. He has to make sure that your work is up to Code

What you are missing is the fact that this installation is existing it is not his work. The inspector should notify the property owner of the violation and let them be responsible.

chrisaustin, the inspector is holding you accountable because you are the electrician currently working on site. He can't just approve your installation, then tell the owner that he has a violation, and order him to go get another electrician. The inspector is simply doing his work, and yes, you are caught in the middle.

The electrcian can not possibly be responsible for any violation on a site simply because they are working there. The inspector is not dong his job. Doing his job is inspecting the work done. If he sees any hazards he should notify the property owner. The lazy inspector is passing his job on to the electrician and has no business putting the electrican in the middle.

Now this raises two good questions.... is chrisaustin responsible to put the installation up to date? and who is responsible for the extra charges that this will bring upon? your your

Sorry to say it chris, but the answer to the first is yes. Any installation has to be Code compliant, even if you are working on an existing system. That does not mean that you have the get the complete facility up to Code, but whatever you install must be Code compliant or else, the almighty inspector will not approve it, plus it is a liability for you and your company. You slipped there. Ethically speaking, it would also be your responsilibity to inform your customer of any other Code violations that you get to see.

Yes you are responsible for your installation. That would be the service change not anything beyond that. How you can say you are responsible for everything and then say you are not responsible for the complete facility to be brought to code is a mystery. You can't have it both ways and you can't pick and choose the violations you want corrected. Ethically should a customer be notified by the electrician of existing violations. Perhaps. But even that is a metter of opinion. However if the inspector sees the violations he must notify the owner and then it is the owners responsiblity. In neither case can the electrcian be held responsible.

Initially I would lean towards the client picking up the tab, but if I were the client of an electrician, I expect the electrician to install everything up to Code....which is where the liability issue comes into play. As electricians, contractors, designers, we have to step inside the shoes of everyone and see their point.

The client should absolutely pay for any work over and above the code compliant installation due to any other violations they want to have corrected. We may have to step inside the shoes of the inspector but we don't have to wear them. Let him keep them on and do his job.

 

[shelco]

Re: Code question

I must amend my first post.
I re read the original post and i mistakenly interpreted it as you added an outdoor service panel and made the original service panel a sub.
If all you did was change out an existing panel then i would say the 100 amp sub is not neccesarily you responsability. With that said a violation does exist and a potential safety hazard as well, unless the sub panel has ground and neutral seperated. this still should be remediated.

 

[chrisausti]

Re: Code question

The term fragrant violation used by some is totally wrong. A #12 wire on a 50 amp breaker, now that is a FRAGRANT violation. This is just a simple question as to how much must you upgrade when doing a job on an existing home. Should i also change out the porch rec to a gfi? If i replace a sp switch wired with 2-wire should i change the romex feeding it to a grounding type so the yoke is grounded. The list could go on and on.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Code question

Originally posted by chrisausti:
The term fragrant violation used by some is totally wrong. A #12 wire on a 50 amp breaker, now that is a FRAGRANT violation.

I can smell the burning!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Code question

I agree, being forced to upgrade wiring on the load side of the new service is nonsense. There is no logical point to stop upgrading with that rationale. As soon as you replace the feeder, you'd land a new feeder in that old panel, that wouldn't have terminals to land the fourth conductor on. So then you'd have to replace that panel. You've replaced the panel, and suddenly realized that none of the old NM or K&T had grounding conductors, so now you'll have to replace all that...

It's fundamentally stupid. IMO, any local municipality that were to pass such a rule is fundamentally flawed. :roll:

All hail the nanny state.

 

[paul]

Re: Code question

Where is the 100A subpanel located?

 

[thinfool]

Re: Code question

I don't believe the inspector can approve a system that he knows has more than a single point where the ground and neutral are connected.

Then he is the violator, or at least, the co-conspirator...!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Code question

Pierre, thinfool, Bob Peterson, Infinity, Molotov27, and others who agree with the ideas they've presented, I offer the following:

NEC-2002 80.9(C) Additions, Alterations, or Repairs. Additions, alterations, or repairs to any building, structure, or premises shall conform to that required of a new building without requiring the existing building to comply with all the requirements of this Code. Additions, alterations, installations, or repairs shall not cause an existing building to become unsafe or to adversely affect the performance of the building as determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Electrical wiring added to an existing service, feeder, or branch circuit shall not result in an installation that violates the provisions of the Code in force at the time the additions are made.

While Article 80 is not enforceable unless specifically adopted, it does announce the opinion of the NFPA, the creator of our standard.

Originally posted by tshea:
In my city, we are required to do just that when we change a service, by City Ordinance.

At least the city has that rule on the books (I assume), as opposed to some individual deciding that suddenly, a non-existant law will be enforced. I still think it's foolish for a city to discourage service upgrades in this manner. When you enact laws restricting an activity, it has the natural side effect of creating a black market for that activity, and those who have strong "ethical inclinations" would be well-advised to leave the hard work alone. Why voluntarily accept the encumbrances of damaging buildings unnecesarily to satisfy a city ordinance, passed in the face of the desires of a nationally recognized standard?

Then again, I don't like most laws.

[ May 21, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[tshea]

Re: Code question

georgestolz said:

When you enact laws restricting an activity, it has the natural side effect of creating a black market for that activity

Yep, we have the bootleggers doing this. They replace panel, meter and riser for cash and do not do the rest of the city required work.

The reason the city ordinance was put in place was to stop the "panel change." Many years ago the electrician would replace the service and reconnect all existing circuits. No problem , right? Wrong! Same problem as before, only now the homeowner just went and reset the breaker instead of replaceing the fuse. Basically you now had a 100Amp service with 3 or 4 circuits originally from a 30 or 60 Amp service.
The city enacted an ordinace and all legit electricians bid on the same job. I saw legit because there are those who are not working, or the wannabes who skirt the rules.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Code question

Originally posted by thinfool:
I don't believe the inspector can approve a system that he knows has more than a single point where the ground and neutral are connected.

Maybe not but that is between the inspector and the owner. Leave the electrician out of it.

[ May 22, 2005, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Code question

I will venture back into the area do you change out a panel for what ever reason fuses burnt buss and now require the entire system to conform to todays codes??? That would include afci, SA circuit,gfcis yada yada yada .I first responded oh yes 4 wire but after some thought a simple panel change out should not have to lead to a total rewire.Before the old fuse buss let lose it was ok to have this in place but lets go safer and get rid of a faulty ocpd and now we have to tear the walls out to conform to 99/02/05 cycles GIVE ME A BREAK.No different than replacing a broken receptacle in a dining room that at the time was permitted to feed lights in that room and now since all you did was replace a device you have to rewire the entire circuit because at the time it was permitted to tap lights off the dining circuit(can`t remember if it was 93 or 96 allowed this)

 

[domnic]

Re: Code question

if the conduit from the new service to the sub is EMT or RMC WHY CANT YOU USE IT AS YOUR ECG.

 

[romeo]

Re: Code question

I do not believe that the inspector is correct in asking that the feeder to the sub panel be changed anymore than he would require a dryer or range cable be changed during a service upgrade.

If I were the inspector I would approve the job and notify the home owner in writing about the violation and recommend the he hire a qualified electrician to change the feeder. Then it is up to the home owner and the inspector would have done his job.

 

[romeo]

Re: Code question

I want to add something. If you created a code violation then you need to fix it but that was an existing violation that may not have even been a violation when it was installed.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Code question

The basic premise around here is that any work done today must meet today's code. The caveat is that the original work must have been both legal and properly inspected at the time it was done.

In other words, if you stumble upon, let's say, an improper service upgrade (no GEC or water ground, no cable clamps, never insp., drop to meter still 100a, exposed NM's, etc.), your work won't pass.

On a recent whole-house standby-generator transfer-switch install, I needed to added separate EGC busses, because the service disconnect ahead of the TS rendered the panel a sub-panel.

The inspector agreed with my wrapping the bare neutral in the SE-cable-supplied appliance circuits with white tape and landing them on the now-isolated neutral busses.

However, on a meter-relocation job, I did have to replace the service cable because the additional run length required a stand-alone disconnect at the meter; inspector's term: "increased risk".

The point is that, in both cases, I didn't have to replace the bare-neutral SE cables with 3-conductor (plus ground) cables, as they were proper at the time of installation.